Greyparrot has made the claim that DD is in favor of open borders. BoP is on pro. If pro can find a single post of DD saying anything remotely in favor of open borders on DART or DDO, no matter how long ago it was made, then pros BoP is fulfilled. If pro is unable to do this then he is simply creating fake news about DD for no particular reason by making this accusation and the mature thing for pro to do would be to admit that this accusation was simply pulled out of his ass.

Pros attempted Kritik here is that he has never made any implication aligning with the resolution before the debate began and therefore the debate is invalid. Rather than taking the easy route and linking to the post where he made said implication I will instead point out to the voters that this kritik is completely irrelevant to the debate even if what GP was saying was true.

This debate is about whether or not DD loves open borders. The moment GP accepted the debate as pro he agreed to argue in favor of the resolution. Even if pro could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not in fact believe this position to be valid it could still be assumed that pro had taken a 'devils advocate' position, a common practice which any voters here will surely be familiar with. If pro did not wish to take such a position he needed only to not accept the debate.

I am not sure what pros lack of understanding of Spanish has to do with anything. This debate is being conducted in English.

Published:
12.12.19 12:11AM

Con is correct. By accepting the debate, I must accept the claim as existing, even if it does not exist.

The burden of proof was on Pro and was clearly outlined in the description. Pro needed to provide a quote proving that Discipulus_Didicit used to support open borders. He failed to do so, and thus did not meet his burden of proof. Arguments go to Con.

Pro lazy and mocking actually towards Spanish speakers more so than to Con because he is associating not understanding something with the other person conveying the Spanish language (when BoP actually is an English abbreviation of Burden of Proof).

Conduct docked.

Arguments to Con because Con has de facto authority to say that the belief is not present and Pro did nothing to suggest otherwise.

Credit to pro for accepting the debate, but he then could not provide any evidence (even while the description stated he just needed to find a since piece). Con on the other hand explained BoP and such, and pro failed to even try to advance any points.
...
Also pretty sure that doesn't rise to the level of a K. Those have:
Analysis: The main complaint, and Kritik introduction.
Link: What specific element of the opponent’s case it deals with and how.
Implications: The damage done if the K is ignored.
Alternative: What better solution does the K suggest? If none, we should use the status quo.